Trump, July 2017: Tweet more

Trump lawyer:

I wonder why the Secret Service, if this was nefarious, why the Secret Service allowed these people in.

Because they weren't carrying weapons?

Sounds like Jr. has secured some top-notch legal counsel.

5d chess looking more like 1D checkers played w/ Monopoly pieces

Re: Trump numbers, reportedly he is faring very poorly in counties that Obama won but he flipped.

He was not the droid they were searching for.

LOL, secret service statement throws DJTJ under the bus. does that conflict with mission statement?

The Nixon comparisons hit the next level.

A spokesperson for U.S. Senator Dean Heller confirms an investigation is underway following a break-in at his Las Vegas campaign office.

— George Knapp (@g_knapp) July 16, 2017

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/poll-trump-historically-unpopular-at-six-month-mark.html

uuggghhh

But the people who matter most to Trump are sticking with him, with 82 percent of GOP voters approving of his performance. (Among independents, it’s a dismal 32 percent.) He still does well among white Evangelical Protestants (61 percent approval) and white men without a college degree (55 percent). Trump’s handling of the economy also isn’t a disaster: Forty-three percent approve of it compared to 41 percent who disapprove and 16 percent who are unsure.

Yeah, not surprising at all re economy. I keep saying that! A major, undeniable fuckup there is what would break the spell -- and would you want that?

Meantime, Mike Flynn, surfer.

https://apnews.com/45e07fcaf920466eb64a76fa118b1d36/Flynn-returns-to-hometown,-surfing-in-respite-from-scandal

82% is kinda shockingly low for GOP approval of a GOP POTUS, innit? Like, one of the few things they have going for themselves is mindless solidarity. Things like Graham threatening to introduce an alternate healthcare bill show some definite chinks developing in that armor.

I mean, let's get real here; 82% approval is not "shockingly low" by any reasonable metric. I understand the need to look for silver linings but let's not deny reality while doing so.

Well, there's something more afoot here, isn't there? He's at 82% approval or whatever, but whenever they dive deep there always seems to be only about 30% diehard Trump supporters. So within that 80% there has to be a range of approval, and "approval" in the abstract may not be the same thing as blind support.

That said, Dan otm. He should be at zero, and anything in the double digits is innately troubling/disturbing/depressing.

Could be fun

oh man CREW is getting (and releasing) Mar-a-Lago visitor logs, starting Sept 8 pic.twitter.com/tNqfDam5IK

— Betsy Woodruff (@woodruffbets) July 17, 2017

Anyway, Nick Confessore apparently was saying the same thing in more detail than I was just now -- talking about this being a 'Performative Presidency' and that to the base the performance is the presidency, etc. This exchange further summarizing what would need to happen in order for things to change re said base:

The whole "Performative Presidency" theory is fun, right up until there's a real crisis with a need for decisions, judgement and leadership.

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) July 17, 2017

I'm not saying it's fun.
But maybe that's when the wheels come off.

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) July 17, 2017

So the question again: do you want that? (George W.'s legacy was crippled and tarnished by Iraq/Katrina and finally sunk by the 2008 crash. Consider all the loss that resulted from those events. Do you want that?)

And I like this one-two-three just now

What a lot of people miss is that the American republic was designed to cope with almost anything except "lol nothing matters" voters.

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) July 17, 2017

Slight correction: vengeance voters don't know enough about those norms to want to destroy them. They just want to upset people they hate. https://t.co/tqm3fvgpN4

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) July 17, 2017

And rather than destroy norms, they're looking to get even with people they think are responsible for their unhappy situation. https://t.co/gsoHKqi3eC

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) July 17, 2017

So the question again: do you want that? (George W.'s legacy was crippled and tarnished by Iraq/Katrina and finally sunk by the 2008 crash. Consider all the loss that resulted from those events. Do you want that?)

I mean, would we have a choice?

Wondering, because I don't have an answer to this: why do people like Susan Collins even identify as Republicans? What is it about the GOP that they support that they could not support as a slightly more conservative Democrat?

Ned, isn't the question more like "have the effects of the Trump presidency hit Iraq/Katrina-level disastrousness yet?" because the only reason to hope for some terrible event would be to decisively prevent a second term, not just animosity toward DJT. It's difficult to account for climate change/environmental catastrophe in that calculus but I'd day "not yet" right now.

Josh, the 82% is GOP only. That number will never not be in the high double digits. Which is still sad.

We're absolutely going to end up with ICE / CBP pulling some Abu Ghraib type shit, and I've been completely confident since December that thousands will die in a horribly mismanaged and/or totally avoidable disaster a la Deepwater Horizon plus Katrina but let's say in Los Angeles or Philly instead of the gulf again.

Imho getting diddled out of our election by a foreign adversary is already Iraq-level fucked up but that's a personal feeling I have because I get to live with knowing too much about it for the rest of my life, and it was mostly on Dems for "going high"

Ask me how I really feel about Republicans for accepting the help, though! Ask me.

Gwan so

it was mostly on Dems for "going high"

this was not the reason Hillary lost. if anything her campaign spent too much time pointing out that her opponent was a piece of shit.

You completely missed my point but that's understandable

I'm not talking about the campaign at all. I'm talking about the administration.

He's at 82% approval or whatever, but whenever they dive deep there always seems to be only about 30% diehard Trump supporters. So within that 80% there has to be a range of approval, and "approval" in the abstract may not be the same thing as blind support.

Yeah I have to think that there's a sizable contingent of "I don't love Trump all that much, but if I'm being asked a question by the Washington Post, Gallup, or ABC my answer is going to be 90% Fuck You."

Or as in the Nichols tweet Ned posted, "vengeance voters don't know enough about those norms to want to destroy them. They just want to upset people they hate."

the real question is "would you *vote* for the motherfucker in 2020?"

Suggested ELECTION2020 thread title.

I guess since he won't have actually learned or accomplished anything in four years, people may still be persuaded to vote for him on the basis of his not being an experienced politician.

Dear god, assuming he actually retains his office long enough to get to that point, I'm suddenly despairing at the likely tenor of the ads for his reelection campaign.

if the Dems manage to take the House in 2018, impeachment proceedings will begin and it becomes pretty hard to predict what happens next in terms of the 2020 election. Team Trump will of course circle the wagons and amp up the witch hunt narrative as much as possible, but if GOP candidates in general smell blood in the water there may be schisms to exploit. Who knows, really.

pretty big if there

things can change, but i don't see it happening

McCain's recovery could take awhile, doctors say

How convenient.

take all the time you need, John. Really, do not hurry back

The original maverick..... he finally came through

— slackbot (@pareene) July 16, 2017

I've said it in other ways but for a pure numbers game, nothing happens to him politically until or unless the approval hits 25-28%.

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) July 16, 2017

that's what I've been saying all along, and honestly I think he could stoop that low by the end of the year. the problem is....nothing's really happened yet. his ineffectiveness could be his savior.

the stock market wont be trading at an all time high for the next three years. something very bad is going to happen (again).

McSweenies: How to talk to your teen about colluding with Russia, by Tom Russell

Even the best-behaved teen is likely to encounter a situation where he or she is tempted to collude with Russia. Unfortunately for parents, a teen’s natural tendency to test the limits of independence can often manifest itself in his or her exchanging sensitive information with Russian emissaries for material or other rewards. If not constructively addressed during adolescence, colluding with Russia can have much more serious consequences in adulthood.

Here are a few tips for engaging in a healthy conversation with your teen about the hazards of colluding with Russia:

what election interference? the american president's russian creditors are starting to get testy : (

The country houses outside New York and Washington must be returned unconditionally after they were taken over by the U.S. “absolutely in breach of international law,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call Monday. “We continue to hope that our American colleagues will demonstrate political wisdom and political will” to resolve the issue at talks in Washington on Monday between U.S. Undersecretary of State Thomas Shannon and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, he said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-17/russia-raises-heat-on-trump-over-seized-property-ahead-of-talks

lol "absolutely in breach of international law". suck on our sovereignty, ruskies

Roffle. (Re: some new book coming out tomorrow by a Bloomberg reporter on the campaign last year.)

Trump shouted at Manafort after report that campaign aides tried getting his attention through TV interviews https://t.co/r4inHE7JAu pic.twitter.com/191IjvFYHU

— Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) July 17, 2017

I see Beach Boy is having fun

http://time.com/4861843/chris-christie-donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting/

Republican Gov. Chris Christie on Monday addressed Donald Trump Jr.'s 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney, saying it's "probably against the law" to get opposition research for his father's presidential campaign from a foreign country.

But Christie, a friend and adviser to President Donald Trump, also said that it's too early be "jumping to conclusions" and that there's no evidence the campaign obtained such research.

did trump not know or not care that his campaign manager was a bought and paid for russian operative?

He's probably irked that it was paid for

"Whoa whoa this guy's double dipping?"

hook this shit into my veeeeeeeeeiiiiinnnnsssssss

"I wanna get in the fire truck."
"No way."
"Yes. Me go in."
"Mr. President, after last time I really don't think --"
"Here I go I'm in it!" pic.twitter.com/eEs0dbrM4o

— Ken Tremendous (@KenTremendous) July 17, 2017

Jesus Christ.